Clinton Anger Unleashed
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
So now that he's on the other end he hates it. What a shame I switched cable companies. I went from Comcast (Crappy Signal and Customer Service) to Bell South (Great Signal and Customer Service). Bell South Doesn't carry Fox News on their basic cable service.
So now that he's on the other end he hates it. What a shame I switched cable companies. I went from Comcast (Crappy Signal and Customer Service) to Bell South (Great Signal and Customer Service). Bell South Doesn't carry Fox News on their basic cable service.
mmarsh
Active member
What exact are some of you celebrating, that a president can get angry on TV? Damn, thats a really important relevation! Obviously none have you have watched a Bush Press conference. Its laughable the lengths people will go blame Clinton for something, no matter how stupid, pointless, or worthless it is. Case in point, Clinton got mad, Sheesh is that the best you can do? Zzzzzz.
Its also hilarious how some of you can rush to judgement without even watching the interview. Do you really think you know what he said by a 30 sec video edit, of which Clinton only appears for about 10 secs. Its no wonder that some of you are so misinformed. Why dont you people read the transcript first and then comment, Clinton was angry but Wallace little ambush backfired, instead of the standard FAUX NEWS tactics of bullying the guests it was Wallace that complete lost control of the interview.
I've provided the REAL transcript below...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html
Secondly, Have any you asked why was angry? Of course not.
The whole reason he went on FOX NEWS was to talk about The Clinton Inititive's focus on Climate Change (because Rupert Murdock is a member of this group). The Clear and Balanced people ambushed him by changing the subject. Thats why he was pissed off.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html
So basically the only way Conservatives got the interview they wanted was by lies and deception, S.O.P for the conservative far right these days. And you wonder why they are so hated.
But utlimately I agree that its Bill Clintons fault, I mean he should have known better to think he would be treated fairly by the FALSE NEWS channel.
Anyone want to comment on the 'Liberal Media' bias?
Its also hilarious how some of you can rush to judgement without even watching the interview. Do you really think you know what he said by a 30 sec video edit, of which Clinton only appears for about 10 secs. Its no wonder that some of you are so misinformed. Why dont you people read the transcript first and then comment, Clinton was angry but Wallace little ambush backfired, instead of the standard FAUX NEWS tactics of bullying the guests it was Wallace that complete lost control of the interview.
I've provided the REAL transcript below...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html
Secondly, Have any you asked why was angry? Of course not.
The whole reason he went on FOX NEWS was to talk about The Clinton Inititive's focus on Climate Change (because Rupert Murdock is a member of this group). The Clear and Balanced people ambushed him by changing the subject. Thats why he was pissed off.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html
So basically the only way Conservatives got the interview they wanted was by lies and deception, S.O.P for the conservative far right these days. And you wonder why they are so hated.
But utlimately I agree that its Bill Clintons fault, I mean he should have known better to think he would be treated fairly by the FALSE NEWS channel.
Anyone want to comment on the 'Liberal Media' bias?
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Actually it was closer than people realized. In one case Bin Laden was supposed to be at the meeting that was targeted but changed his scheduale at the very last minute, resulting in the Tomahawks missing him by an hour. But regardlessm He admits in the interview (the one people didnt watch) that he tried to kill OBL and failed. He also admits he could have tried harder.
AMAZING! We actually have an ex-president who can admits mistakes, unlike the one most people on this forum are so busy apologizing and making excuses for.
Last edited:
Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Here is another clip..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI
NEW YORK (AP) - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"
"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.
Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.
"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.
He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."
The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," also taped Friday and aired Sunday, Clinton told interviewer Tim Russert that the biggest problem confronting the world today is "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity." "That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI
NEW YORK (AP) - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"
"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.
Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.
"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.
He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."
The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," also taped Friday and aired Sunday, Clinton told interviewer Tim Russert that the biggest problem confronting the world today is "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity." "That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."
Last edited:
Marinerhodes
Active member
He can afford to admit his mistakes now that he is no longer a POTUS and not so much in the limelight.
As for apologizing for and making excuses. . meh, your opinion. Just because you feel a person is wrong does not make them wrong. Just because I feel a person is right does not make them right. But we all have the right to express the opinion of whether they are right or wrong.
mmarsh
Active member
1. Plenty of Presidents have admitted error while in office. But a president doesnt even have to say anything, he can simply take quiet corrective measures in order to remedy the error. Bush cannot even do that. Bush's problem is that he's an ideolog, and like most ideologs they can never accept the fact that they are wrong. Did you see the last time Tony Blair was in Washington? At the press conference, He was admitting the Iraqi mistakes FOR Bush. It was truly pathetic. This president is so wrapped in his ideology he will never admit anything and that wont change when hes out of office.
In fact I dont he'll be saying much of anything when he's out of office, his handlers will make sure to that.
2. There's a difference about stating an opinion backed with facts and a blind refusal to discuss the facts. You see, I have noticed on this board that most of the Bush supporters don't actually deny all the terrible things he has done, they just refuse to talk about it, instead of facing the truth about the present disasterous state of affairs, they warp it around so that somehow it all becomes Bill Clintons fault, no matter how ridiculous (case in point) it is or the fact that Clinton has been out of office for the past 6 years. Thats being an apologist.
Last edited:
Donkey
Active member
Funny how the left can't take it and go on to do the SAME exact thing, perhaps one should practice what he preaches
edit-
I found this on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15011269/
My take on it all is it was a massive failure of our government in general and all this "finger pointing" shows it. The whole it's not my fault BS that got us in this mess to begin with... The it's not my problem; the we can’t share with them; all the red tape; all the PC touchy feely crap; all of it has lead to what is happening...And sitting around pointing fingers from all sides is not going to fix anything...
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Clinton bushwack -vs- Iraqi body count .....
And the Republicans don't?
Case in point - GW Bush (or) any Bush supporter, when asked any question pertaining to any responsibility for the deaths of more military members killed in Iraq, than those civilians who were killed on 9/11.
You'd think that someone had taken candy from a child (or) you were committing a treasonous act when the question is posed .
SORRY - GW ordered the troops into Iraq and is keeping them there, so the responsibility for all of the deaths are his PERSONAL responsibility. You could make a very good claim, that the deaths of over 45,000 Iraqi civilians is his responsibility also.
SO WHO IS MORE CHILDISH? Clinton because he felt he was 'bushwhacked' by Wallace (or) those who make excuses for GW (GW included).
Reference:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
And the Republicans don't?
Case in point - GW Bush (or) any Bush supporter, when asked any question pertaining to any responsibility for the deaths of more military members killed in Iraq, than those civilians who were killed on 9/11.
You'd think that someone had taken candy from a child (or) you were committing a treasonous act when the question is posed .
SORRY - GW ordered the troops into Iraq and is keeping them there, so the responsibility for all of the deaths are his PERSONAL responsibility. You could make a very good claim, that the deaths of over 45,000 Iraqi civilians is his responsibility also.
SO WHO IS MORE CHILDISH? Clinton because he felt he was 'bushwhacked' by Wallace (or) those who make excuses for GW (GW included).
Reference:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
moving0target
Active member
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but doesn't that mean that Roosevelt is responsible for all the US casualties as well as all civilian casualties during his presidency? That's several million people...and he's a hero. Does it mean that JFK is responsible for the same?
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but doesn't that mean that Roosevelt is responsible for all the US casualties as well as all civilian casualties during his presidency? That's several million people...and he's a hero. Does it mean that JFK is responsible for the same?
YES ....
But not to the extent that GW Bush is responsible - with Rooseveldt there was a 'declaration' of war (and we were attacked) ... with Kennedy, congress and Kennedy got us involved because we were fellow members of SEATO along with South Vietnam (a member nation that had been attacked) ... GW Bush had NONE of those fallbacks ... he ordered an invasion of a country that had NOT attacked us and had no plans of doing so.
Last edited:
moving0target
Active member
Prove it.
mmarsh
Active member
Moving0Target
What Chief Bones is saying has been proven by a Congress Investigative commitee. They release a report 3 weeks ago where they have positively concluded that there was no Saddam-bin Laden link. Therefore it was simply impossible for Saddam to be involved in 9-11...
You are arguing against established facts here...
What Chief Bones is saying has been proven by a Congress Investigative commitee. They release a report 3 weeks ago where they have positively concluded that there was no Saddam-bin Laden link. Therefore it was simply impossible for Saddam to be involved in 9-11...
You are arguing against established facts here...
Donkey
Active member
Established facts?
First off if you want to argue the number of deaths in Iraq you must use the ones caused by direct enemy fire and not accidents since one could argue that those same accidents could happen stateside, after all they are accidents.
Now we also most look at the death tolls which Iraq has not yet reached...
Coalition causalities - 2710 (note this includes "accidents", this also includes non USA coalition members)
9/11 Confirmed dead - 2973
Furthermore GW did not single handily order troops into Iraq. He cant it has to go through the branches of government in which it did and in witch all voted and agreed it was appropriate...(to my recognition most Americans at the time where all for it as well). Thus this whole blame game needs to stop, we can not move forward and fix problems if everyone wants to blame everyone else and that is all we do, all parties are guilty of this.
So you may want to get your "established facts" correct before you try arguing with them.
While Saddam was not connected to Binladen he was connected to forms of terrorism and found to be a threat by multiple Inteligance Agencies from many different countries. Needless to say multiple different politicians in the US had also thought of him as a serious threat.
As moving0target said "Prove it"
Check this thing out I found
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200407130904.asp
Prove these FACTs wrong:
First off if you want to argue the number of deaths in Iraq you must use the ones caused by direct enemy fire and not accidents since one could argue that those same accidents could happen stateside, after all they are accidents.
Now we also most look at the death tolls which Iraq has not yet reached...
Coalition causalities - 2710 (note this includes "accidents", this also includes non USA coalition members)
9/11 Confirmed dead - 2973
Furthermore GW did not single handily order troops into Iraq. He cant it has to go through the branches of government in which it did and in witch all voted and agreed it was appropriate...(to my recognition most Americans at the time where all for it as well). Thus this whole blame game needs to stop, we can not move forward and fix problems if everyone wants to blame everyone else and that is all we do, all parties are guilty of this.
So you may want to get your "established facts" correct before you try arguing with them.
While Saddam was not connected to Binladen he was connected to forms of terrorism and found to be a threat by multiple Inteligance Agencies from many different countries. Needless to say multiple different politicians in the US had also thought of him as a serious threat.
As moving0target said "Prove it"
Check this thing out I found
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200407130904.asp
Prove these FACTs wrong:
I guess this documented statement never happend
Nore did this
I guess Bill's wife was making shizzle up as well
The quotes can go on forever.... So it looks more than GW is to blame, looks more like we all are to blame!
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
What on earth are you talking about?
You asked Bones to prove the fact that Iraq was not behind 9-11 nor never a planned to attack us, Remember? If not See Below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
GW Bush had NONE of those fallbacks ... he ordered an invasion of a country that had NOT attacked us and had no plans of doing so.
Prove it.
To wit, I pointed out the this (from the 9/11 commision). I never once talked about causuality figures...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Did you forget what you wrote? or are you deliberatly trying to change the subject?
You asked Bones to prove the fact that Iraq was not behind 9-11 nor never a planned to attack us, Remember? If not See Below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
GW Bush had NONE of those fallbacks ... he ordered an invasion of a country that had NOT attacked us and had no plans of doing so.
Prove it.
To wit, I pointed out the this (from the 9/11 commision). I never once talked about causuality figures...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Did you forget what you wrote? or are you deliberatly trying to change the subject?